Talk:Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Iberia?

Well, now that you have achieved a consensus about some of the parts of the title of this article, let me introduce another question: There is no reason for calling Iberia the lands conquered by the Moorish in 711, for several reasons:

• Iberia is an ambiguous term, than can mistake about the historical time of the conquest. It was the Greek term for the peninsula, and also refers to Iberian people, who had dissapeared as a group hundreds of years before.
• The land conquered by the Moorish was called Hispania by their inhabitans under Visigothic domain, and so it was called before under the Roman Empire, that determined most of the cultural references of the Peninsula before the Umayyads, including language.
• If we take the name of the conquerors we should use Al-Ándalus, but I think this would be an error, because what was conquered properly was Hispania, not Al-Andalus.
• The term Iberia is scarcely used nowadays, and it is commonly used in the form "Iberian Peninsula" to limit a geographical precise entity. Iberia is known nowadays in the Spanish speaking (and I think it could happen also to English) more as an Airlines trade group than anything related to geography :-))

Therefore, I think that the title should be changed to Umayyad Conquest of Hispania, if we prefer a historical emphasis in the title, or the longer Umayyad Conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, if we prefer a geographical emphasis. I rather prefer the former, that gives more information about the historical moment. any opinion?--Garcilaso 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support the former too. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would vote for the geographical context (Going to ignore the expansion into Septamania due to size and time period) because technically unless the Visigoths also called their land Hispania (Vandalucia theory for the Arab name Andalus) the Roman province was gone, and Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire)who succeeded are probably the ones who preferred to use the term Iberia for region. (I am guessing here, because they are the only Greek speaking power with influence enough to introduce a new name into Europe and who countinued to claim the title and inheritance of the Romans). Personally no real preference, just unsure on what the conventions are, everywhere I've run across the reference it has always read the Iberian peninsula vs. the political regions. As an aside did not the Visigoth Kingdom extend into Aquitania as well prior to the arrival of the Umayyads.--Tigeroo 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course, with Tigeroo, in saying that every title or definition has nuances, and it is very difficult to explain an exact historical concept in less than ten words. The article, not the title, would make that distinctions. It could be good to have that magic word that would be exact, but, as you say, not purely all Hispania was conquered and not all that was conquered was Hispania. It is a rough aproximation. Anyway, the same problem goes with Iberian Peninsula, that was not conquered in its integrity, and, as you say, the Moorish also reached up to Poitiers. But that incursion beyond the Pirinees can hardly be considered an conquest for its ephemeral character. (If we are precise, the conquest was not even made by the Umayyads themselves, but by their Moorish leaders Tariq and Musa ibn Nusair, and afterwards, it was used as a shelter by Abd ar-Rahman I, the Umayyad prince, only afted the conquest was complete).

Indeed, Hispania was the term used to call either political and geographically the region, and here you have some text from the Etymologiae of Saint Isidore of Seville (by the way, for his effort in compailing the knowledge of his moment and also because of his visible limitations could be considered a precursor of the Wikipedia:-))[1]

Book 14: DE TERRA ET PARTIBUS (About Earth and its divisions)

4.2 Europa autem in tertiam partem orbis divisa incipit a flumine Tanai, descendens ad occasum per septentrionalem Oceanum usque in fines Hispaniae.

4.19 Italia autem et Hispania idcirco Hesperiae dictae quod Graeci Hespero stella navigent et in Italia et in Hispania. Quae hac ratione discernuntur; aut enim Hesperiam solam dicis et significas Italiam, aut addis ultimam et significas Hispaniam, quia in occidentis est fine.

4.28 Hispania prius ab Ibero amne Iberia nuncupata, postea ab Hispalo Hispania cognominata est. Ipsa est et vera Hesperia, ab Hespero stella occidentali dicta.

It is interesting also the 9th book, in which he talks, as an historian about the Iberian people. As you can see, he the higest thinker of the Visigothic period calls Hispania the region and the political entity in is days, and also remembers that Romans also did, and talks about the origin of the Iberian population as pure history. Other less cultivated Visigoths wouldn´t even have mentioned (and ignored) that historical name. So, as you can see, Iberia is completely out of context, and I don´t Know how Bizantines(?) called it, but they weren´t in Hispania an directly influent political and cultural group. (Anyway, I suspect deeply that they also called it Hispania, dont forget that they were origined as an extension of Roman Empire culture.)

Therefore, I still plead for Hispania.--Garcilaso 11:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

These are some maps with some differences (I suppose whether they represent different moments or different theories, but all of them showing the Visigothic Kingdom after the absortion of the Bizantine territories and before the incorporation of the kingdom of the Suevos by Leovigildo.[2][3][4]

These are some maps of the first moments of the Moorish advance [5] and of different moments of Al-Ándalus and the Reconquista[6]. As can be seen, with the addition of the Suevii Kindgom, the firsts Umayyad Al-Ándalus corresponds quite good to the Visigothic Hispania, missing the territories beyond the Cantabre Mountains. So it is more inexact to refer to Iberian Peninsula, that was never entirely conquered, than to the Visigothic Hispania, that almost completely matches.--Garcilaso 14:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Poitiers

Unless there are objections. I'm removing the sentence(s) about Charles Martel. This article is about the Umayyad invasion of Hispania, whereby the Battle of Poitiers is extraneous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't wait for anyone to object!

I do object. How extraneous can it be, when it's due to the invasion of Hispania that the Muslims ended up in Gaul/France when they did? It also shows how the invasion was not some neatly contained event; it affected Hispania's neighbor, i.e., had broader consequences. SamEV (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Count Julian

The article now states:

What are available are a number of stories that might more properly be described as legends. The manner of King Roderic's ascent to the throne is unclear; there are accounts of dispute with the son of his predecessor Wittiza, and accounts that Wittiza's family fled to Tangier and solicited help from there. Numismatic evidence suggests some division of royal authority, with several coinages being struck. There is also a story of one Julian, count of Ceuta, whose wife or daughter was raped by Roderic and who also sought help from Tangier. However, these stories are legendary and not included in the earliest accounts of the conquest.[2]

I think Julian is dismissed way too lightly here. He is mentioned in the earliest Arab sources as far as I know. He also has a separate detailed page of his on wikipedia. Any ideas how to rewrite this? Bazuz (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the paragraph above is fairly comprehensive and correct about the topic, but as I see it a more straight but cautious approach could be provided, like "it seems that", "according to X sources", "x is thought to have ...". The best of course is a citation anyway. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But is it correct to assert that the story of Julian is "legendary and not included in the earliest accounts of the conquest" when it is included in the earliest Muslim accounts? (For instance, in Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's chronicle). The earliest accounts referred to in the article now are apparently the Christian sources which are much later and poorer, so there is apparently a case of over-reliance on some sources and neglect of others here. What do you think? Bazuz (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the Wikipedia favours secondary sources rather than primary ones. I think it´s safe to cite what a primary source states if it´s a reputed one, but I´d mention the source. I agree that there are too many Christian sources, often of dubious reliability and based on Western Christian legends. However, Wikipedia is no place for personal research. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment is in regards to the angle of this section. In my surface scratching research (I'm just familiarizing myself with this), I came across this text on the Julian, Count of Ceuta page (under the Rift with Roderic section) itself: "...Later ballads and chronicles inflated this tale, Muslims making her out an innocent virgin who was ravished, Christians making her a seductress. In Spanish she came to be known as la Cava Rumía....". Even though the page indicates that it is merely one story, it fails to acknowledge what the other stories are. I do see that sources are lacking so in any event, these two pages need to be reconciled to avoid conflicting with each other. Saltybalty (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2015

Hi Saltybalty, I suggest you add it yourself, but remember that secondary sources are preferred. The author you cite is a later source, both Western and African/Asian sources are fraught with legends during the Middle Ages, but the account may have some relevance or reasons to think the story is (partly) credible. Cite the author, and that should do. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible Original Research in section "Background"

Here are some quotations from the section that motivated me to insert the tag:

1. Most of the first paragraph
   1. "regarded as reliable but often vague"
   2. "There are no contemporary Muslim accounts"
   3. "much coloured by the writers' sense of what was proper"
   4. "much coloured ... by contemporary politics
   5. characterization of source "Al-Maqqari"
   6. "This paucity of sources means that any specific or detailed claims need to be regarded with caution."
2. Since my original tagging, User Iñaki LL: inserted citations in the second parapgraph (thank you). However:
   1. "What are available are a number of stories that might more properly be described as legends"
   2. "The manner of King Roderic's ascent to the throne is unclear; there are accounts" - if there are accounts, why is it unclear?

—Boruch Baum (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph in question is sufficiently tagged by now. Adding tags to just every phrase does not shed more light or help building a reliable and readable WP. The paragraphs still tagged as wanting verifiability are not mine, but are reasonable enough as to give it credit if you have some insight into the matter. That it is unclear is just evident to anyone with some knowledge on the topic, and it goes the same about Al-Maqqari. Claiming caution about the source and its narrative is no extra information. However, I left the citation template at the top. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Page move

"Islamic invasion of Iberia" gets 16 Google hits. "Islamic conquest of Iberia" gets 213. Please move the page back. Furthermore, the new title doesn't go in according to WP:NPOV, not matter how true you think it is. —Khoikhoi 04:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Google hits on this issue is a moot point. The title should be accurate and describle the actual character of the event rather than present a revisionist ill-informed spin on this period of history.--CltFn 04:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You're looking at the event from the Spanish side, therefore it's not neutral. We also have to include the Muslim side. --—Khoikhoi 04:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure both sides need to be included but must be supported by facts and sources. Invasion is defined as "The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory " and that is precisely what happened.--CltFn 04:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What you may see as a "fact" may not be seen as a fact by the other side. Please move it back. —Khoikhoi 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This article covers the period of 711 to 718 . That was a period of invasion. Invasion describe what took place accurately . --CltFn 05:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to contact some other users and ask what they think. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Conquest.. Invasion.. the differnce between the terms is not important,IMO. however, the invasion/Conquest was not Islamic, less you can prove to me it was requested by Muhammad. It was an invasion by the Moors, thus, it was a Moorish invasion. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Invasion and war against non-Muslims to convert, subjugate, enslave, or annihilate them is a basic tenet of Islam, which has been demonstrated consistently since Mohammed invaded Mecca. To pretend Islam is anything other than a martial theocracy is either a demonstration of taqiyya or general scholastic ignorance. 16:29, 01 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. It was not an "Islamic" invasion/conquest (whichever word you want to use), it was a Moorish conquest/invasion. I'm sure, at least at that time, that not all Moors (ie. Berbers) were Muslim, although most would have been. That they were muslim was pure chance. Other non-Mulsim Berbers also entered during the conquest, including some Berber Jews and others. In regards to the choice of invasion over conquest, I don't necessarily have a problem with either, but to avoid POV I'd go for conquest. Invasion is too emotional. I see no purpose in changing to invasion, it would be as useful as renaiming "Spanish conquest of the Americas" to "Spanish invasion of the Americas". Al-Andalus 03:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just an Islamic invasion made mainly by Moors. If anyone has got any doubt about this just consult the capitulations between Abd-al-Aziz ibn Muzza ibn Nussair (the Arabian and Islamic governor of North Africa) and Tudmir (Visigothic dux of Western Spain(?)) to surrender the current Spanish region of Murcia, the capitulations began with the clasic "In the name of Allah! ... ". So where is the doubt?

Threshold 16:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When Muslims eat, they begin with the "Classic" formulation "In the name of Allah...." it's traditional to invoke that formulation at the beginning of anything, a supplication to grace, from eating food to setting out an a journey, to marraige, to prayer to contracts etc. No doubt the army was predominantly berber and almost entirely muslim because of both logistics and ideology but the top brass was arab and umayyad, in fact the only place the umayyad continued on after the abbasid revolt was by escaping to Cordoba. Any rate, while Europeans may only have seen then as a monolithic entity of "muslims" or "islamics" much as they may have overlooked the difference between the franks and visigoths it helps to be specific if only to differentiate between the different periods and rulers, kingdoms and empires who all even in the crusades labelled simply as the muslims. The best analogy I can raise is calling Indians and Chinese Asians or even Vietnamese and Chinese Asians. Hope that helps.--Tigeroo 09:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As per this discussion I am moving the article to read conquest vs. invasion, and moorish to umayyad as conquest also describes the political affect of the incorporation of the territory into Ummayyad fold.--Tigeroo 09:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The conquest was achieved by the Umayyads - this basic knowledge is needed in order understand political and military developments in Al-Andalus and elsewhere. Good changes. --Ian Pitchford 12:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

---

It's an invasion because Moorish occupied the Iberian peninsula, killing a great part of the population and subjugated the natives for 7 centuries.

Do you prefer to call it invitation to drink a cup of tea? You are not entitled to distort the history of a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.216 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.216 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Umayyad conquest of Hispania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://e-spacio.uned.es/fez/eserv.php?pid=bibliuned:ETFSerie1-71E2565C-354B-7D1E-4C3F-27B8664C1938&dsID=PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721060321/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/g/gibbon/edward/g43d/chapter51.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Suppression of reference

Hello, you do not even try to check the source I posted, you immediately deleted my sources.

Several Arab-Muslim historians mention that Tariq would have decided by himself (which would cause the anger of his superiors) to land in Spain, and this must be taken into account

See here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad

the French wikipedia article is completely sourced.

Sorry for my bad English, I am Portuguese.

Marcel Baron 14 January 2018 13:57 (UTC)

I am the main contributor to this article and, coming down to detail, there is nothing that leads us to think that the invasion of Hispania was a premeditated plan. Information available suggests that developments on the ground escalated from an initial military support by Tariq to the officialist faction led by Achila II on into a full-blown political takeover of the Visigothic Kingdom. This is suggested by Roger Collins. Collins, Roger (1989). The Arab Conquest of Spain 710-797. Iñaki LL (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: your edit summery 'Rv fully sourced info...' is strange since I only added further referenced content and did not remove the sourced info added by Marcel. Is there a specific reason for your removal of the sourced content I added? Regards - Swazzo (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swazzo: Um...I took a look at this, where no mention is done to the Caliph. Also the source that would support your claim does not say anything about any Caliphs. Plus from what I can remember, Collins does not support a Caliph sending orders to invade Hispania. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I also took a look at the source added by Marcel and it does not say anything about any Caliphs. It instead refers to his wali. Don't get me wrong, Collins is well-respected historian, but I think it's fair to include differing information from other reliable sources. Swazzo (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is none of the sources cite a Caliph, so why add it? A wali is cited, but I think it refers to the next commander breaking into the Peninsula, al-Nusayr. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What about Was a Time When... the Moors Ruled Spain, p.17? or Past and Present, Chapter 7. The Islamic World, 800-1300, Tariq ibn Ziyad? Swazzo (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a time when the Moors Ruled Spain, is self published(AuthorHouse), and the author has written a similarly titled book about the Romans. Do you have information concerning this author?

Your link goes to this:

• Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition, By CTI Reviews,[7]

and not what you wrote, Civilizations Past and Present, Chapter 7. The Islamic World, 800-1300

"Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition" to be a testing book, can not find a publisher and I see no author. Doubtful RS.

For:

• Civilizations Past and Present, Chapter 7. The Islamic World, 800-1300

There is no match on google books. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition. I was referring to the location of the info since the ebook does not provide any page numbers. Swazzo (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Care to explain this edit?

• Under the orders of Caliph Al-Walid I...

Referenced using, Moorish Spain, Richard Fletcher, page 1. Where exactly does it state Caliph Al-Walid I ordered the invasion on page 1? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A slip on my part, I thought that a "Berber army under Arab leadership" would suffice. Can we cite Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition? Swazzo (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know what the point is of adding the Caliph, it does not look like precise or safe information, it is speculative altogether. Not having further time right now, and would need to confirm it in detail, but Collins, who elaborates on the matter, does not find any evidence to support such claim. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Swazzo, Civilizations Past and Present, Single Volume Edition, does not appear to be a reliable source. Also, please quit using {{od}} for your responses. Use : to indent your responses. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swazzo: The source says nothing of the Caliph, so do not alter the statement, that is WP:SYNTH or (as bad) misrepresentation of sources. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is getting a bit boring, Swazzo. Please do not alter the content of sources, that is WP:SYNTH at best (please read it), if not WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources. You may add that phrase in another place if relevant. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: please tell me, what do you find faulty in the sentence:

During the caliphate of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I, forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad disembarked in early 711 in Gibraltar at the head of an army consisting of Berbers (north-western Africa).

The sentence does not mention or imply that the Umayyad conquest was a premeditated plan in any way, shape, or form, it simply states that it took place during the reign of Al Walid I. Also, a source has to actually support its adjacent claim and far more than 'Forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad' is cited and quoted. I moved the source to a relevant section where the event is discussed in detail. Regards - Swazzo (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swazzo: I am trying to be didactic but you are not hearing, right? Iñaki LL (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there some unknown reason why Swazzo is removing the source, The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain? And continuing to edit war to remove it? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not remove the source. I only moved it to the invasion section and added the quoted material. Placing it next to 'forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad' seems flawed since the source covers far more than just that. Swazzo (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks to me you are not hearing or taking advise. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swazzo: You are edit-warring again. I replied in your talk page. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Even though this is WP:BLUE and WP:POPE, I have added a source stating that the Umayyad conquest took place during the reign of Al-Walid I. Swazzo (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot read the page you cite, but back again, you are not hearing, you are welcome to add your information in another suitable place, where it does not collide with WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The fact that the initial Umayyad conquest happened under that caliph's rule does not imply that it had nothing to do with Tariq's initiative. You have not engaged in DRN, and wasting the time of productive editors is disruptive editing. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The policies you keep citing do not apply. Considering the article is titled the Umayyad Conquest of Hispania, it's only appropriate to list the Umayyad caliph whose reign saw the conquest occur in the lead section. Every single claim in the sentence is referenced and nothing collides. I added a reliable source yet you removed it. This is a simple case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Swazzo (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You are edit-warring again. Does your reference cite in page 325 that Tariq, reigning Caliph Al Walid I, initiated his military campaign? Really? I ping Kansas Bear for his knowledge and access to bibliography if he wishes to intervene Iñaki LL (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swazzo - You have already been warned to discuss your edits. User:NeilN - Unfortunately, I think that it is type time for 48-hour block. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swazzo - You were asked to discuss your edits at DRN. You didn't discuss. You have been asked here. Just saying that you are making your edits again is not discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've discussed the edits with the user for more than enough. I've been accused for removing sources when I only moved them, meanwhile, Iñaki LL actually removes a source and nothing is said about that. Swazzo (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swazzo - See below. You have not discussed the edits with the user enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, what are your thoughts on this? Swazzo (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Swazzo - You were properly notified of the filing of a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard on 17 January 2018. The volunteers and other editors waited for you to make a statement. That thread was closed and a thread was opened at the edit-warring noticeboard when it became clear that you were not planning to discuss your edits. If you want to discuss your edits when you come off block, you may discuss here, and if you make a reasonable effort to discuss (which you have not until now), you may file a new request at DRN. Just saying that you are making your edits again is not discussion. You had an opportunity to use DRN. You still have opportunities when you come off block. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User Robert McClenon, may I kindly have your opinion on the matter? User NeilN asked me to provide a quote from the source which I did on my talk page. Swazzo (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Provide the quote here and discuss with the other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Here is the quote from the source:

"WALID, IBN 'ABDUL MALIK AL- (668-715). Sixth Umayyad caliph during whose reign (705-715) the conquest of Spain began in 711 and the eastern part of the empire expanded to the Indus river." Adamec, Ludwig W. (2009). Historical Dictionary of Islam. Scarecrow Press. p. 325.

User Iñaki LL claims the cited sentence "During the caliphate of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I, forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad disembarked in early 711 in Gibraltar at the head of an army consisting of Berbers (north-western Africa)." is causing colliding and WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Swazzo (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, I have provided the quote from the source where it states that the Umayyad conquest took place during the reign of Al-Walid I. I noticed that you used "initiated" in your last comment, which leads me to think that you are not hearing since I explained that the sentence "does not mention or imply that the Umayyad conquest was a premeditated plan in any way, shape, or form, it simply states that it took place during the reign of Al Walid I.". The sentence does not collide with W:SYNTH or WP:OR as every claim is referenced. Do you still have any reasons why the cited sentence should not be added? Swazzo (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, here is a source that mentions Tariq Ibn Ziyad:

"Islam first came to Spain, under the rule of the Umayyad caliph Al-Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik, when in the year 711, the famous Berber commander, Tariq ibn Ziyad, landed on Spanish soil near the small mountain that still bears his name".

The reference cites the caliph Al Walid I during Tariq's intervention, as you requested. Swazzo (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Request

User:Swazzo - I do not entirely understand, but I think that you are avoiding constructive discussion, and I am not sure why you are asking me at all. I was not involved in the discussion about edits to this article until a request was made at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The volunteers at that noticeboard and other editors waited for you to make a statement, and then that thread was closed. I have not been editing this article and am not familiar with the dispute. (I am aware that the invasion began a 750-year war, the Reconquista.) I am not sure what matter I am being asked my opinion about, and I am not sure that I have an opinion, and I am not sure why I am being asked for my opinion. You say that you provided a quote on your talk page. As User:NeilN reminds you, the place to discuss the article is here, the article talk page, and providing a quote on your talk page is a diversion. If you wish to edit this article, discuss the edits here, not somewhere else, and discuss them with other editors who are familiar with the discussion here. It should not be necessary to ask me for my opinion, but my opinion at this time is that you are wasting my time, the time of the other editors, and the time of NeilN. If you engage in any more distracting or diversionary tactics, I will file a report at WP:ANI to ask that you be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the bother, I just hoped for a third opinion on the subject. Swazzo (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Swazzo, I will put this very simple to you: You are bringing two sources, please read thoroughly WP:SYNTH for the last time. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I requested this to you, that you have not provided. Your source does not state anything of Tariq landing/intervening in Hispania during Al Walid.

In close-up consideration we do not know if Tariq was acting from within the Umayyad empire or not, no matter what turn developments took later that year or the following years. No source states that. I offered you other options to place your claim to avoid WP:SYNTH, you reverted and avoided consensus. Please do not bother productive editors again. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Iñaki LL, here is a source that mentions Tariq Ibn Ziyad:

"Islam first came to Spain, under the rule of the Umayyad caliph Al-Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik, when in the year 711, the famous Berber commander, Tariq ibn Ziyad, landed on Spanish soil near the small mountain that still bears his name".

The reference cites the caliph Al Walid I during Tariq's intervention, as you requested. Swazzo (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been much easier and spared us a lot of time if this had been added from the very beginning, and not sources stating otherwise. Also, breaking the thread may be taken as disruptive, so please pay attention to this: continue the thread in a logical way, indenting it, and inserting your reply at the bottom of it. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the mention of Tariq's ethnicity since it is disputed per his article. Swazzo (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That is what the source goes; also, WP is not a source for WP. I know there are doubts over his identity and this is the lead section, where the main information lies, so I would suggest Marcel Baron to add that information somewhere in the text body in the right manner. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the chronology section. Swazzo (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I was referring to the sources in the origin section of Tariq's article and not simply WP. Swazzo (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Expulsion of native moriscos in 1614

Re this edit: [8]

The text before you edited read: "The last wave of expulsions from Spain of the native population of Muslim descent took place in 1614." As the link makes clear, this refers to expulsion of established ("native") denizens of Spain who were of Moorish descent ("moriscos"). These were Christians who had lived for generations in Spain. They were native in the same sense that any other long-standing population of Spain (Basques, Celts, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Romans, Goths, Jews) were native. You are native of a place if you are born there, certainly if your ancestors have lived there for generations.

Your replacement text: "The last wave of expulsions of Muslims from Spain by native population took place in 1614." This refers to Muslims, though the moriscos were not Muslim but Christian, and implies that they were not themselves "native". This is incorrect. Indeed, the moriscos included many who were descended from the pre-Muslim population, and in any event, the rulers who promulgated the expulsion had ancestry of far more recent Spanish origin than the moriscos.

I agree that the original text is awkward, but my replacement text ("The last wave of expulsions of Spaniards of Muslim descent took place in 1614.") reflects the sense of the original, while yours does not.

-- Elphion (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Elphion. While the first decades of the Arab-Berber takeover in Hispania they may have remained separate from local population for a while, inter-marriage was as real as it gets. Plus the Muwallad were population previous to the military intervention starting in 711. Also, inhabitants living in a place for 400, 700 or 900 years in a place, belong in that place, needless to say.

Also, "The last wave of expulsions of Muslims from Spain by native population" sounds, to say the least, perverse. The Andalusi population was expelled by the decisions made by Spanish monarchs, the elites (Church, nobility, local elites) and their armies.Iñaki LL (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Reworking

I intend to rework this page substantially. The problem is that the detailed accounts of the invasion are essential legends written hundreds of years later. None of the the stuff about Julian is remotely contemporary, for example. I propose to start by talking about what we actually know, and then split off the later inventions and describe them as such. We also need to talk about the analysis of whether the invasion was intentional, or just an unusually large raid that got lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bge20 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment. Even though my class assignment does not require me to go beyond editing in my sandbox, I will continue to engage with this page intellectually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramkis (talk • contribs) 04:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxation

The article mentions the Muslim population not being taxed under Umayyad rule.

Moreover, al-Hurr restored lands to their previous Christian landowners, which may have added greatly to the revenue of the Umayyad governors and the caliph of Damascus, since only non-Muslims were subject to taxation.

Is there a source for this ? What about Zakat ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.235.43 (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Most surely they were taxed one way or another, and certainly the Berbers resented a lot the discrimination they received for that. However, I think Collins refers to special taxation for non-Muslims, the Jizya. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Marca Hispanica?

Just taking a cursory look at this article, I noticed that it does not discuss the formation of the Marca Hispanica. That seems an oversight, yes? I would have thought the formation of Marca Hispanica, would be the significant event marking the end of the Umayyad expansion. At the very least a "See also" would seem warranted? Bdushaw (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The Marca Hispanica is a later event circa 800, so no need to cite it in the body. I am fine with adding it in the See, also section. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Background section clarity

The background section as of right now moves from a paragraph discussing the lack of contemporary sources for the conquest to the fact that King Roderic's ascension to the Visigothic throne was contentious and chronicled poorly. In terms of a linking paragraph, how much detail should be given? Presumably, a basic mention that Hispania was, prior to the conquest, controlled by Visigothic tribes (including King Roderic), but beyond that, what is necessary? Is a description of problems within the Visigothic kingdom also necessary?

--Apkrishel (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Apkrishel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Flag icon

This edit [9] reverted the substition of "Flag of Umayyad.svg" for "White flag 3 to 2.svg". The former seems preferable, as it has a light border indicating that there is something there, while the latter results in a patch of blank white space. With the former it's much clearer what is going on, and no reason was given for the reversion. -- Elphion (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Abandoned user draft

Please would an interested editor assess the material added at User:Dramkis/sandbox (marked bold/italic), incorporate what is useful, blank that page as WP:COPYARTICLE, and leave a note here when done? – Fayenatic London 21:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed - with a caveat. There were two separate issues that both supporters and opposers seemed to tackle distinctly and independently: who did the conquering, and who got conquered.

1. Consensus to use "Muslim" over "Umayyad" was emphatically found per common name, recognizability, consistency, etc. The NGrams offered were decisive, as well. Other possibilities (well, basically just "Arab") were considered, but the consistently preferred title was "Muslim", which was the most-attested in reliable sources. "Arab" remains a reasonable alternative to this title, however.

2. The more interesting and difficult question was the final word of the article title. "Spain" was preferred by a mild majority, but many reasonable objections were held. It's true that we follow the sources and it's true that we tend to title historical articles based on how the area was called at the time, and there was a fierce (though quite polite) discussion about what exactly that common name for the landmass at that time is or was. Even some of the people who opposed "Muslim" thought that "Hispania" was not quite the right object of the prepositional phrase. While a weak consensus for "Spain" was found, I recommend a further move request to specifically examine the possibility of "Iberia", which was suggested by a few and which encountered only a small amount of resistance, but which also didn't enjoy widespread acceptance. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Vacated former close; see related discussion on closer's talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The result of the move request was: no consensus. First and foremost, I'll mention: a variety of different title permutations were discussed in this RM, but the only proposals to receive any significant degree of support were (1) the proposed title and (2) the existing article title. Thus, my closure summary will focus on arguments that pertain to the elements "Umayyad", "Muslim", "Hispania", and "Spain". A variety of arguments were leveled throughout this RM, and the main points of discussion were as follows: WP:COMMONNAME. The original nomination centered on the claim that "Muslim conquest of Spain" was the common name for the event in question. In the discussion, it was convincingly demonstrated that a sizable plurality of sources do indeed use that term. However, some users raised concerns about the scope of the source search; it was argued that some of the sources only referred to conquests of the modern country of Spain (as opposed to the rest of the Iberian Peninsula), and that the term "Muslim conquest of Spain" was predominantly used by older sources and might not reflect current-day usage. These concerns were not addressed by supporters of the WP:COMMONNAME argument, leading me to find that no consensus emerged on this point. WP:PRECISE with respect to "Umayyad" vs. "Muslim". Some participants felt that "Umayyad" was more precise, due to identifying the specific polity that perpetrated the conquest. Others noted that "Umayyad" might create ambiguity with the establishment of the Emirate of Córdoba, another Umayyad-led conquest in the same region, and that "Muslim" was sufficiently precise in an era where only one Muslim polity existed. Neither side of this debate appeared to convince the other, leading me to find that no consensus emerged on this point. Appropriateness of "Spain" as a term. Some participants asserted that using "Spain" would lead readers to assume that the article referred to the modern country of Spain (which would be anachronistic) or to only the land controlled by modern Spain (which would be inappropriately over-precise due to excluding Portugal). Other participants argued that "Spain" is commonly used in scholarly sources to refer to the medieval Iberian Peninsula in its entirety, and thus that it is appropriate for usage in the title. Again, neither argument prevailed over the other, and no consensus emerged. WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Some participants argued that the current title (the term "Umayyad" in particular) would be insufficiently recognizable to readers. This view gained some traction, but was also contested briefly. On the whole, I do find a consensus that "Muslim" would be a more recognizable term than "Umayyad" in this context. WP:NPOV. It was argued that the conflation of the various caliphates through the "Muslim" label would be upholding a systemic bias that current-day scholarship is now seeking to push back against. This argument appeared to go uncontested. It was also argued that the contestation of the COMMONNAME claims (as detailed above) was inappropriately introducing a POV to the source analysis, but testing the credibility and applicability of sources is a common practice on Wikipedia, so I found this latter line of argument to be weak. On the whole, I find the NPOV arguments suggest that the term "Umayyad" is less prone to NPOV issues. WP:CONSISTENT. It was argued that using the phrasing "Muslim conquest" would be more consistent with other article titles about the caliphates' military campaigns. This claim was accurate at the time it was made; however, after the topic was raised, RMs were opened on Muslim conquest of Persia and Muslim conquest of Egypt. Thus, while the WP:CONSISTENT argument does seem to support usage of the term "Muslim", the presence of currently-open RMs could change that in the immediate future. Consequently, I have weighed this factor relatively little in my final determination. On the whole, most of the disputes around different facets of titling proved to be intractable. I ultimately find that this discussion resulted in no consensus for any title. The title that would come closest to achieving consensus would probably be "Muslim conquest of Hispania", but I don't feel that the weight of argument would justify a WP:NOGOODOPTIONS move to that title. Instead, the best way to handle this lack of consensus is to remain at the long-term stable title of Umayyad conquest of Hispania. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Umayyad conquest of Hispania → Muslim conquest of Spain – This is easily the most WP:COMMONNAME in book sources for this event in history. According to Ngram viewer it is more than twice as common as "Arab conquest of Spain", "Muslim conquest of Iberia" or "Moorish conquest of Spain", whereas the current title does not register at all on Ngram Viewer - not once - and there's nothing on Google Books either. I've also scanned in other names such as "Moorish conquest of Iberia" or "Arab conquest of Iberia" - they are recorded as uncommon - while all the other options including those with "Hispania" also fail to register. As an encyclopaedia we should follow the majority of WP:RS, although there is nothing wrong with mentioning other names commonly used in the literature as well. But this one appears to be quite obscure. Bermicourt (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Here are the relative stats:

Muslim conquest of Spain - 1838

Arab conquest of Spain - 767

Moorish conquest of Spain - 745

Muslim conquest of Iberia - 616

Arab conquest of Iberia - 49

Moorish conquest of Iberia - 39

Arab conquest of Hispania - 0

Moorish conquest of Hispania - 0

Muslim conquest of Hispania - 0

Umayyad conquest of Hispania - 0

Umayyad conquest of Iberia - 0

Umayyad conquest of Spain - 0

Neither "Umayyad" nor "Hispania" occur in any combination with the other terms in any of the sources. It is not clearly not a concept accepted in scholarly circles. Bermicourt (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose per WP:PRECISE, since 1) it was indeed the Umayyads who conquered and not some other Muslim kingdom, 2) Hispania as a whole was conquered, not just Spain. The redirect from Muslim conquest of Spain is more than adequate. 〜Festucalex • talk • contribs 09:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: There is no clear common name for this, as the same Ngrams referenced above shows when used case-insensitively, and so the guideline in effect is WP:NDESC. And, as noted above, 'Umayyad' is the precise term for the power that conducted the conquest. 'Islamic' and 'Arab' both fall short in presenting a one-dimensional and POV framework, one religious, one ethnic, when the reality is that the Umayyad forces were multi-ethnic, in this case Arab and Berber, and, while Muslim, they were not obviously motivated by religion in this context (such as in a zealotry or holy war-type sense) any more than they were by the more mundane and based motivators of land, power and status, hence 'conquest'. As for the geography, any source using the term 'Spain' exposes its own poverty. 'Medieval Spain' one could perhaps get away with, but otherwise it is either 'Hispania' or 'the Iberian Peninsula' - there are no substitutions for these other than pure anachronism. Umayyad conquest of the Iberian peninsula might be the truest scholarly orthodoxy, as seen in a range of sources, since 'Hispania' is more aptly applied to the Roman province that preceded Visigothic rule, even though the name persisted thereafter, but then there's also WP:CONCISE to worry about. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Current title fails on almost all points described in WP:CRITERIA. The current title is not "based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject". The current title is not recognizable to most readers; it is not natural--most readers would not think to search for the title; it is overly precise--the title only needs to be precise enough to distinguish it from other similar articles; concision and consistency appear to be a wash.Glendoremus (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Recognizable to who? The guideline for recognizability is this: "Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." Spain is simply not correct. Using Muslim and Spain here is like calling the Mongol invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire the 'Tengrist invasion of Kazakhstan', even though Kazakhstan didn't exist back then, and invasions are conducted by polities, groups or political powers, not religious demographics. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

My issue with recognizability has to do with "Umayyad". I realize that the anachronistic use of "Spain" is a perennial hot topic for Wikipedians. I think Moorish Conquest of Iberia (or Hispania) would be a reasonable compromise. Glendoremus (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support "Muslim conquest of Spain" as proposed. Might reluctantly also accept "Muslim conquest of Hispania", but oppose all other proposals ("Moorish", "Iberia", etc.). There is no "other Muslim kingdom" in 711. There is only one Muslim political entity (the caliphate) at this time. It is consistent with "Muslim conquest of Persia", "Muslim conquest of Egypt", "Muslim conquest of the Maghreb", etc. It is not only more recognizable, it is actually a bit clearer, as there actually is a later Umayyad conquest of Spain (in 756), that is more properly distinguished as "Umayyad" (in defiance of the then ruling Abbasids of the caliphate). But there is no distinction at this stage. Walrasiad (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose so we are just going to exclude Portugal from this article, which at the time was not politically, geographically or ethnically different from the rest of the peninsula? If a move would be for some reason necessary, Umayyad conquest of the Iberian Peninsula could be a plausible option. I have no opinion in the use of "Muslim" or "Umayyad". Super Ψ Dro 20:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not about "we"; it's about the sources. And the most WP:COMMONNAME used by the sources is not "Foo conquest of Portugal and Spain" or anything like it. And no source uses "Umayyad conquest of anything"; it's Wikipedia fiction. And confusing fiction at that. Bermicourt (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The term "Portugal" is not really relevant in this time period. It is not being excluded. "Spain" is a general geographical connotation at this time, and commonly found in RSs, the literal English translation of the Roman province of Hispania. Like the use of the terms "Britain", "Germany" or "Italy" for the Roman provinces of "Britannia", "Germania" and "Italia". Walrasiad (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but this title is not acceptable. It is 100% obvious readers will believe this article is restricted to the modern country of Spain if we use this title, and readers wanting to go to a Portugal-specific article (believing such information would not be here) would not know where to go. We could even have an artificial split of this article by having someone create an article called "Muslim conquest of Portugal" even though both historical events are one and the same. It is all problems and zero benefits. I can't even understand why would users support a hard and inflexible interpretation of the sources to achieve an outcome like this. The article is about Portugal and Spain, so it cannot only include Spain in the title. Period.

Geographical names of the 8th century hardly matter here. We are discussing a title for a Wikipedia article in 2023, and we should employ names used in 2023 for the areas we are referring to. Also, "Spain" (or rather, Hispania) had a different connotation than now. It back then referred to the Roman province(s) covering the Iberian Peninsula or even areas of northern Africa and modern southern France. But it now only means the country. We cannot ignore this difference in intended meaning and employ a name over an area it does not refer to. Further, if Spain truly was an appropriate name for this epoch, the article Hispania would then be titled Spain (antiquity) or something similar, but it isn't. In the English language, Hispania is used for the past meaning and Spain is used for the modern meaning. Switching them up is nonsense. It is also for this reason that on Wikipedia, we do not use the names "Britain", "Germany" or "Italy" for the Roman provinces of "Britannia", "Germania" and "Italia".

As for the supposed common name, I'd like to see evidence showing that "Muslim conquest of Spain" is being used for the whole of the Iberian Peninsula and not only to Spain in the context of Spanish history, which is not the scope of this article. Super Ψ Dro 14:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: As the Google Scholar link that I have already provided attests, the statement above is simply not correct. For the sake of everyone's benefit, I will resupply it: here are your scholarly sources using the exact phrase "Umayyad conquest of the Iberian peninsula". For fairly obvious reasons, not least the matter "Spain" not existing at the time, and Portugal being actively excluded through the usage of the terminology of "Spain", scholarly usage tends to avoid such flagrant anachronisms. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I would note that this would be less objectionable if one added in the modifier 'Visigothic', as in 'Visigothic Spain', because then at least the anachronism would be contextualized by what is a very common name indeed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Fairly obvious? The exact phrase "Muslim conquest of Spain" has more than tenfold more hits on Googlescholar. Walrasiad (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, and half of the hits on the first page are from the 1990s or earlier, with the leading hit being from 1976 and in the journal Jewish Social Studies - so what this actually tells us is that the preference for this imprecise language is both stronger in more dated sources, and, predictably, stronger in sources approaching the subject from rather specific interpretive framework, such as here, a very specific ethno-religious angle. In any case, I'm not denying that the name is popular, only that it falls short of WP:COMMONNAME and that other considerations apply. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It is massively disproportionate. We are aiming for an article title, where recognizability is important. This is aimed at a general audience, not specialized scholars. Qualifications and precision, scholarly or otherwise, can be explained in the text. Walrasiad (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

And I am arguing that it does not take a specialist to know the term "Umayyad" - this dynasty ruled the caliphate for a hundred years and ruled Spain for 300 more - a longevity greater than that of many Kingdoms and Empires throughout history. It was not a mere blip on the historical landscape, and this vague hand-having at all things caliphal as "Muslim" is not only imprecise, it is a rather obvious form of entrenched systemic bias - one that has been noted in peer-reviewed scholarship: see this paper, page 678, last paragraph, where it refers to 'Muslim conquest' and 'Christian reconquest' as "contested phrases". One could cry POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support. Walrasiad is correct that "Umayyad" is unnecessary and potentially more ambiguous than the proposal. It is less recognizable to a broad audience and less consistent with related articles. "Muslim" is fine, although my personal preference is for "Arab", as in the main English monograph on the subject by Roger Collins, The Arab Conquest of Spain. As for "Spain", this is the normal translation of Hispania in English sources for the early medieval period. It does not exclude Portugal, Gibraltar or Andorra. Another option, as Iskandar323 points out, is to use "Visigothic Spain" for clarity. I toyed with the idea of using "Visigothic Kingdom" at Talk:Umayyad invasion of Gaul#Titles. The latter terms have the advantage of being political rather than geographic and the conquest certainly did not stop at the Pyrenees, as neither did the Visigothic kingdom. My support is weak because the proposal is not my first choice, because I have grown comfortable over the years with this title and because I have no idea what the 600+ daily readers who come here take away from this title nor what they would gain or lose if it were changed to the proposal. But the current title looks "made by committee" and corresponds to nothing used in scholarship. Srnec (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support. The current title is technically correct, but unrecognizable for most readers. I would not have thought to look under it; I would have looked under either "Muslim" or "Arab", and between the two it seems that "Muslim" is more accurate. I might expect "Hispania" in articles about Roman times, but even in Roman history we commonly use "Spain" interchangeably with "Hispania". It might not be inappropriate to use "Hispania" for variety, but it's not the name most people will think of by this point in time. As the nominator says, it doesn't appear that the present title is at all common in published sources, while the proposed title is. So while the current title isn't necessarily wrong, it's clearly not the best title, and the proposed title easily appears to be the best of the alternatives. P Aculeius (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support there is no concise name that is perfect in every nuance, but the proposed name is more easily recognizable to a layman than the current one, and appears to correspond to COMMONNAME as well. As someone familiar with the history of medieval Spain, I would also consider the term 'Spain' to encompass the entire peninsula, and have seen it thus in multiple English-language works. Furthermore, the argument that the Arab conquests of the 7th and 8th century were not primarily driven by religious zeal, and that 'Muslim conquest' is therefore incorrect, is rather facetious: yes there were mundane motives as well, but without Islam and the impetus it gave, there never would have been any Arab conquests in the first place. We see even in our modern world how ideological imperatives can prevail against 'common sense' or narrow material interests. Constantine ✍ 19:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Current name is unrecognisable. The proposed name may not be perfect but no better one has been suggested. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. While I agree that the proposed title isn't perfect, but the present title is better than the proposed one. I particularly agree with Festucalex's comments regarding WP:PRECISE. I'm not opposed to Glendoremus's alt proposal of "Moorish conquest of Iberia".--Estar8806 (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Moor" (moro) is used by Spaniards (maybe by the Portuguese too) as a slur against Muslims. Probably not a good idea. Super Ψ Dro 13:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that it's not a good idea to use offensive language, it's not often used as a slur in English (from my quick research). First off, I'm not suggesting the suggesting the name "moro", I'm suggesting "Moor". They may mean the same thing in different languages, but are different words regardless. Second, it's not English wikipedia's job to avoid using language that is considered a slur in other languages. Third, it's used as the translation of Moors on Spanish wikipedia. Fourth, it's used elsewhere on English wikipedia (cf. Moorish architecture, etc.). And there are of course, the Moro people who self-identify with the name. Moor is an imprecise term even in English, but that doesn't make it offensive and even further doesn't make it unsuitable for Wikipedia. Estar8806 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

And on Google Scholar the results are:

• "umayyad conquest of the iberian peninsula" - 45 results
• "umayyad conquest of Hispania" - 67 results
• "Muslim conquest of Spain" - 564 results

So the proposed title is still way more common than the current one and one cannot cry "POV" because this is not anyone's opinion, but factually what WP:RELIABLESOURCES mostly use. What is POV is unsourced argument that the majority of reliable sources must be wrong. Bermicourt (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Muslim conquest of Spain" is a different concept from "Umayyad conquest of Hispania" or "Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula" (which by the way gets 220 results [10], it's on wide usage by reliable sources). Super Ψ Dro 21:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

There is much historical evidence that both the conquerors and conquered used the word "Spain" in their respective languages for the whole geographical area. It was a contraction of the old Roman word "Hispania" which had superseded by the Middle Ages. "Iberia" is a modern construct, but one that is still not as common as "Spain". Bermicourt (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Iberia is a name that comes from Greek geographers, so it actually predates Hispania. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the word "Hispania" had evolved to something distinct enough by the 8th century, when Vulgar Latin had barely even started splitting into the several Romance languages. Please provide sources showing this phenomenon. By the way, the article Hispania covers historical events up until the 15th century. Super Ψ Dro 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur that 'Spain' would be actively misleading in the title, since this article is not about events in the geography of just modern Spain, but modern Spain, modern Portugal and a portion of modern France. If the article was 'medieval archaeological finds in Spain' it would be fine, because archaeology is often to be divided up by the jurisdiction of the modern country, but that is not the case here, where the history of this conquest spans the borders of multiple modern countries, hence 'Hispania' is the correct, precise term. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Spain" does not only mean the modern state any more than "Germany" does. "Spain" is the historical name of the peninsular region and most commonly used name for it, both in history and by historians. Likewise historians frequently refer to "Germany" even though there was no German Empire until 1871 - they were just collections of states in the Holy Roman Empire. And Spain was just a collection of states too. That's why the vast majority of sources use "Spain" and so should we if we aspire to be a decent encyclopaedia. "Hispania" is the Roman province and hence totally anachronistic; the Muslims and Spanish at the time didn't call it Hispania. Take a look at the Muslim coins of the era - they had "SPAN" embossed on them! And if you want sources, try Ngram again:

• "Muslim Spain" - score of 53156
• "Muslim Hispania" - score of 27

So "Spain" is used nearly 2,000 times more often than "Hispania" in the sources. And "Umayyad Hispania" doesn't even register. I'm afraid all the counterarguments ignore the overwhelming evidence of scholarly sources. Bermicourt (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

"Spain" is the historical name of the peninsular region and most commonly used name for it, both in history and by historians. in English-language literature, that would be Hispania, not Spain. Likewise historians frequently refer to "Germany" even though there was no German Empire until 1871 - they were just collections of states in the Holy Roman Empire. And Spain was just a collection of states too. Germany is if anything, used for all those states and regions that ended up being part of the modern country of Germany (and maybe to some lands it "recently" lost). It is not applied to other countries of the area such as Austria even though it is culturally, ethically and historically interrelated to the rest of Germany, because historians understand it is nonsense to refer to a country with the name of another. But this is anyway WP:OTHERSTUFF, because "Spain" is not used to refer to Portugal, ever. Those Middle Ages names are only the Roman name "Hispania" evolving into the modern English "Spain". I am not sure why should we adapt a name starting in "Span" such as "Spania" to "Spain" instead of "Hispania", that's your preference.

I incite users here to quit paying attention to the "common name" argument because Bermicourt has repeatedly failed to attend my demands of evidence proving that "Spain" in the searches they have provided apply to the whole of the peninsula and not only to Spain, or that they are studies on Iberian-wide history rather than specifically focused on Spanish one. I searched "Muslim Spain" on Google Scholar, and already the third result registers this name only because the article is titled "Muslim Spain and Portugal", implying Spain does not mean Iberia there [11]. And I didn't even have to click on it. "Hispania" and "Spain" are two different things in Wikipedia, you cannot compare one with the other, because one is Spain + Portugal (plus a couple territories) and the second is only Spain. And again, alternatives employing Iberia/the Iberian Peninsula, as I've shown above, are popular in academia, so they're a more than valid candidate for titling this article, it does not have to be only about Hispania vs. Spain. Super Ψ Dro 10:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Inciting editors not to follow Wikipedia's primary policy of WP:COMMONNAME is effectively arguing that the majority of scholars are wrong and that we should follow our own WP:POVs instead. I don't have to prove why scholars mostly use "Spain", it's enough to understand that they do. Of course, there will always be scholars with a minority view and I've been quite candid about that, but I'm not proposing we adopt a minority name. We already have that.Bermicourt (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not inciting editors to reject WP:COMMONNAME, but to reject your claim that your proposed title is supported by the policy. I don't have to prove why scholars mostly use "Spain" you're the starter of a requested move, you are quite literally required to do so. Super Ψ Dro 13:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the point is here. No one is arguing for "Muslim Hispania" as a phrase in any title. Muslim Spain has no bearing on this either, any more than Muslim Portugal does, since neither cover the entire geography at hand here. The Holy Roman Empire is the Holy Roman Empire, and Hispania, the Roman and then Visigothic domain that the Umayyads invaded and conquered is called just that. I'm equally not sure what point about the Muslims not calling it Hispania has to do with anything. They called is Al-Andalus, which is obviously a completely different name altogether and has no bearing on the title here, which refers to the name of the area being invaded. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus. Incorrect. I only have to prove that scholars mostly use "Spain", not why they do. And the stats speak for themselves. @Iskandar, you are clearly not aware that as well as implementing their policy of renaming captured territory, even the Muslims continued to use the word "Spain" or its Arabic equivalent as well. And "Spain" was used for the whole area, even Portugal (from the 12th C) was a "kingdom in Spain" like Castile, or Léon and the native peoples under Muslim rule were referred to as Spani. All of which is a red herring. The proposal is to move this to the most common title in English. I have no axe to grind here; if anyone can convince me that there is a more common one than that proposed, I'm willing to support that instead. Bermicourt (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW editors may wish to be aware that there are new proposals to move the following articles to "Arab conquest of Foo/NewName": Muslim conquest of Persia and Muslim conquest of Egypt. Bermicourt (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow. @Iskandar323, it seems rather sleazy to start those RMs before this one is even finished. And not even alerting discussants here or there that there are parallel discussions going on? Walrasiad (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

They are simple WP:COMMONNAME discussions, and anyone in the relevant Wikiprojects can see them. The only topic of discussion here is this page's name, and it has zero bearing on other pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it has bearing on other pages. Consistency was one of the arguments I brought up for these pages, and you promptly went at started RMs on them. Don't assume we're naive. This was very bad form. Walrasiad (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I only have to prove that scholars mostly use "Spain" you still haven't done that. Please prove that "Spain" in most sources is used for the whole of Iberia including Portugal. Super Ψ Dro 14:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter what the place was called under the Muslims; what matters was what it was called at the point at which it was invaded, when it was still known as "Hispania". The "Visigothic Kingdom of Toledo" would of course be even more precise as the target of conquest, but then we would be butting up against pretty serious concision issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What matters is what most scholars call this event; the rest is interesting but irrelevant. Bermicourt (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I've already weighed in on the title above, but since the matter still hasn't been settled, and I didn't address the issue in detail before, I'll state that I agree that the modern use of "Spain" by historians in English-language sources should be determinative in this case. "Spain" and "Hispania" are used interchangeably for the entire peninsula during Roman times; while the name "Portugal" derives from a Roman-era name for a particular region, it was not regarded as a region distinct and separate from the rest of Roman Spain. The use of "Hispania" is not technically incorrect for post-Roman times, but historians tend to use "Spain" instead. Both can be used for variety, as can "Iberia" or "the Iberian peninsula", but "Spain" is the most commonly used and most recognizable.

I see no evidence that "Spain" as used by historians excludes Portugal at any point prior to its establishment as a separate kingdom in the twelfth century, and it certainly does not during the period of Visigothic rule, which as our article indicates encompassed the entire peninsula for some three hundred years prior to the Muslim conquest. During this period, "Spain" unambiguously refers to the entire peninsula, not the borders of modern Spain. Objecting to it on the grounds that it excludes Portugal is anachronistic, and as pointless as objecting to the use of "Italy" to describe the peninsula that today includes the Vatican City and San Marino.

As for the use of "Muslim" versus "Arab" or "Umayyad", I do not see this as an example of modern identity politics, but simply a matter of following historical convention. Few readers will ever search for this topic under "Umayyad" as it is not a familiar term in non-specialist English-language histories. Even those who are aware of it will not normally search for it, as it is not widely used as a title for this subject. The fact that it is more precise than the alternatives is beside the point: we have "Spanish Inquisition", not "Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition". An article title should be the most recognizable alternative, where that can be established, unless there is a compelling reason for not using it; precision becomes relevant mainly if there are two or more comparably recognizable alternatives, which is not the case here.

There is nothing inherently offensive about describing the invaders as "Muslim", any more than it is to describe the Crusaders as "Christian". The conquest was motivated in large part, if not necessarily to the exclusion of all other goals, to expand the reach of Islam into Europe and enlarge the existing Muslim state, by conquering the territory and converting as many of its inhabitants as possible to Islam. There was no question of turning Spain into an Arab state or converting its inhabitants into Arabs! I do not dispute that for some people the description of a "Muslim" conquest may strike a nerve—but we do not avoid historical accuracy merely because some people are bigoted. "Muslim conquest" does nothing more than accurately describe a historical event from which we are long removed, and it uses the most widely-used and recognizable description of that event. P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: As far as I can see, there is not an obvious reason from the basic perspective of source prevalence to be favouring "Muslim" over "Arab", when, if anything, the latter carries the greater long-term weighting in sourcing. This is also borne out on Google Scholar, where "Arab conquest of Spain" bests "Muslim conquest of Spain" 700+ hits to 560+ hits. A big cause of this is the prolific volume of reviews for the very seminal The Arab Conquest of Spain: 710 - 797 by medievalist Roger Collins, which, I would note, accounts for a third of all its references on this page - a perhaps unsurprising performance given its subject-matter expertise/specialism. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The number of references to a particular source is not very relevant for determining the best title for an article. Where "Muslim" and "Arab" are both applied with some frequency, it makes sense to delve into how accurately the terms describe the event. All of the invading forces were Muslims; only some were Arabs. Their goal was to bring Spain under the governance of a state defined by its adherence to Islam and its goal of spreading Islam throughout the world. The effect was to establish a distinctly Muslim state, or series of states, which were not defined by their connections to the Umayyads—already lost by the time the conquest reached its greatest extent—or to persons of Arab ethnicity. Since the motivations of the invaders and the effect of their conquest were primarily religious, and bore only a limited and temporary correspondence to ethnicity, "Muslim" makes more sense in the title. It also has the benefit of relating to the conquered territory long after the Umayyads and Arabia ceased to be associated with Muslim rule in Spain, which of course continued in various degrees until the late fifteenth century. P Aculeius (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The number of references to a particular source is highly relevant in determining the weight of that source, much as frequency of citation and one's h-index is relevant in academia. Roger Collins is an established expert. Your other points here seem to revolve largely around what you think the article should be called based on your opinion, not an assessment of the sourcing. There are two things to consider here: policy and sources, and you bring neither to bear in the above paragraph. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:TITLE, particularly WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. There is nothing in this policy about adopting whatever title the author of a particular work has used, even if that work is the most frequently cited by the article, or indeed the main work cited, and no matter how brilliant an expert the author is. My opinion and the reasons already given multiple times on this page are based on actual Wikipedia policy—if you choose to disregard them because they are my "opinion" then feel free—but you're not going to "win" this argument by BLUDGEONING everybody who disagrees with you here or on the other articles where you're making the same argument over and over. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You can of course ignore source quality, the prevailing sources used in the article and the academic pedigree of their authors, but don't kid yourself that you are helping the project or abiding by its core principles in doing so. WP:NPA is also policy. If you have issues with me, you should take it to my talk page, not poison talks. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As P Aculeius correctly notes, those involved in this conquest were not only Arabs. Berbers played a huge role on it, and in fact they surpassed the Arabs. We can hardly talk about Arabs in the area of Maghreb in the 8th century. Berbers were for centuries a very relevant structure of the society of al-Andalus, they were their own class in the social hierarchy. This is what is taught in history class in Spain. Note that Tariq ibn Ziyad, who initiated the conquest of Iberia, was a Berber. To only refer to this as an "Arab conquest" would be a huge ignorance of history and would attribute an ethnic point of view to the conquest which it did not have. Super メ Dro 20:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 'Arab', much like 'Muslim', pertains to the dominant characteristics of the invading polity. Of course, there is a more precise option: Umayyad, but this discussion exists precisely because there is a want to nix that. An Arab army is no more necessarily 'Arab' than an Egyptian army 'Egyptian' or a Byzantine army 'Byzantine'; it is a characterisation of the dominant ruling class of the power in question. Unless we have a gallup poll or pew survey from the 7th century handy, it is likewise extremely daft from an objective point of view to characterise an entire army, including one comprising locally enlisted Berber tribes, as 'Muslim'. Heaven knows what the religious practices were and state of faith was among the rank and file. My point was about the sources, which are what we follow here. Do you think the likes of Roger Collins are ignorant of the Berber component of the Umayyad forces? Or is it possible that topline descriptions of armies aren't required to contain granular details of their make-up? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

While I get your point, I am pretty sure the line between what was Arab and what was not was pretty clear in the 7th century. Further, I think calling a Byzantine army "Byzantine" would be the equivalent of titling this article with "Umayyad", while calling it "Greek" would be the equivalent of calling this one "Arab". "Byzantine" is an okay umbrella term for the groups of peoples composing the army of the Byzantine Empire as it was not only composed of Greeks and ethnicity was also not a relevant factor. Which I'd argue is the same here. The problem following this logic would then be which of the umbrella terms, "Umayyad" or "Muslim", would be the most appropriate, if accepted firstly as such. And I believe "Muslim" is indeed appropriate as these conquests were based on the spread of Islam by Muslims.

I also think Berbers were actually more numerous than Arabs. That's what Spaniards get taught. And apparently Collins himself affirms this, read the third paragraph here. I am also unsure about there being any evidence for there having been believers of local Berber faiths among the army that conquered Iberia. One could have then expected some presence of these in the peninsula which I seriously doubt has ever been recorded. Let's not forget the Umayyads governed a caliphate, ruled by the caliph, an Islamic leader who was supposed to be a successor of Muhammad, as I've understood it. Islam was the main, central and common factor here. It was definitively not Arab ethnicity, with Arabs anyway having been a minority in many of the lands they conquered, this also affecting their armies. Super Ψ Dro 22:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look at page 8-9 of that Collins work (page 12-13 on google books), it elaborates that the invading force of 711 consisted of a dominant group of mainly mawali, or former slaves and their descendants affiliated with Arab tribes, accompanied a much larger body of Berber troops that was mainly used as a garrisoning force in the center and north of the peninsula after resistance had already been crushed. There are two key points here: 1) the Berbers, as a recently conquered and subjugated people, were never the core of the invading force or tip of the spear, but auxiliary forces (directed as necessary to mundane tasks such as garrisoning). 2) the Arab component of the forces was still considered 'dominant' despite being numerically outweighed by their Berber auxiliaries. Combined, these are the factors that contributes to it being called an 'Arab' conquest. That the Berbers might loom larger in Spanish history classes is not particularly surprising, since those troops actually garrisoning cities and maintaining the occupation (presumably with the usual occupational violence) would naturally loom larger in local histories relative to the forces present at the comparatively brief battles that actually decided the course of the invasion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What I still don't get is why use a title that partially covers the invading forces rather than using a title that completely covers it. Also, the claim that the Berbers were never the core of the invading force or tip of the spear is inaccurate, as the commander who initiated the invasion, Tariq, was a Berber. Out of the six listed commanders in the infobox, two were Berbers, and one might have been an Arab or a Berber. And two of those six Arab commanders were under the lead of Tariq. "Arab" is simply not an appropriate term here. Super Ψ Dro 13:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Both "Muslim" and "Arab" in the proposed titles are political terms, not religious or ethnic. The first is shorthand for "of the Caliphate"; the second for "of the Arab empire" (the first and only). Srnec (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You're the first here to introduce "Arab" in a political sense. Up to this point we've discussed Arabs and Berbers as separate demographic groups. If we're to also consider the political aspect of "Arab" and "Muslim" then what's the point of distinguishing them from "Umayyad"? So far users here have supported "Muslim" for this having been a campaign aimed at spreading Islam (as supporters of this have stated) and "Arab" for Arabs having been the dominant elite of the invasion (as supporters of this have stated). This is how I've understood it so far. Super Ψ Dro 15:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I also meant Arab in a political sense, which is the sense in which Tariq's identity is a sidenote. That a Berber was in command does not detract from the fact that it was an Arab army at its core acting on behalf of an Arab empire. Likewise, that the commander of the Mongol forces at the Battle of Ain Jalut was Kitbuqa, a Naiman and Nestorian Christian, did not detract from it being a Mongol engagement. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Note @Iskandar323 is at it again, starting more related RMs before this one is even finished. He's now opened RMs on Early Muslim conquests and Muslim conquest of Armenia, trying to get their titles changed from "Muslim" to "Arab". He has also has created a new page he titled Arab conquest of Mesopotamia. And once again, he has not notified editors here or on any other on-going discussions that he opened related RMs, forcing them to scramble across pages and repeat the same arguments again. Walrasiad (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think this rises to the level of disruption or policy violation that requires some sort of intervention, perhaps you should consider taking this to the admin noticeboard. I'm not really that familiar with the process, as I try to avoid escalating conflicts even when they're as frustrating as this. But I'm happy to support you if you think it would help. Or if you don't think it rises to that level, can you suggest a more productive course of action? P Aculeius (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How about you both stick to commenting on the content, not the contributor, per WP:NPA. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I note that Arab conquest of Mesopotamia might be considered a WP:POVFORK of Muslim conquest of Persia, if it mainly duplicates the material already present at the latter title. But that could change if the scope of the article is narrowed, and substantial new content is added to it. Whether the title is ideal is a separate issue. We'll have to see whether the content becomes sufficiently distinct to justify a separate article as something other than a POVFORK, but it is the responsibility of the editor who created the new article to make it distinct. P Aculeius (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.